Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Diyarbakir - Second Bite of the Planning Cherry
Having been refused planning permission to extend their restaurant with the addition of a third shop, Diyarbakir have just submitted an application for a temporary change of use.
Their application is made under the The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Engl.... This permits a change use for a single period of up two years to A1, A2, A3 and B1 uses.
As long as the area is less than 150 sq mts, only notification is required. Council approval is not needed.
As far as I'm aware this permission can only apply to the individual premises and would not allow the owners to knock through to Diyarbakir.......but I may be wrong.
The law seems oddly riddled with loopholes on this, doesn't it.
Tags for Forum Posts: diyarbakir, planning
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on
-
I have objected to this on the basis that the permission to extend the existing business into this premises has already been refused and that there is a risk that this temporary application will negate that refusal.
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
As I understand it, Michael, an application made under permitted development has to be granted unless it contravenes any of the exclusions laid down in the legislation. Unless the premises exceeds the 150 sq mts limit, I don't see that it does.
Given your LA knowledge, however, you may know better than I.
-
Permalink Reply by kotkas on
-
Yucks. Quite distasteful, given the solid grounds of the refusal of the 1st attempt. Hidden meaning is that they probably count on the council lacking the impetus to enforce reinstatement of the premise. Very bizarre indeed.
-
-
I’m chancing it a bit Hugh. On strictly planning grounds it’s likely it’s pemitted development but as Annee says, if the planning officer looks at the application and applicant history for this site it might ring alarm bells
-
-
I think they got temporary permission for individual units, but because of the size limit it didn’t work fir the whole premises.
-
Permalink Reply by AndrewAW1 on
-
Yes, they attempted to get temporary permission for each of the individual units, glossing over that they were all connected.
-
-
Well if they're applying for that building individually (and there is no intention to join it to the other premises) it would theoretically be allowed. I'd be surprised if they were planning to run two separate restaurants next door to each other though (but this may well not become clear until after the permission is granted).
-
-
I think it will almost certainly be allowed. As things stand, the legislation offers no other option. However, as I’ve said below, any future attempt to join it to the main business would I hope be stopped. I say ‘hope’ because I am not aware how the flexible change legislation deals with this or whether it covers it at all.
-
-
They didn’t only attempt; they succeeded. They were granted flexible change of use sepatately on 13, 14 and 15. They applied for 14 & 15 together but we’re refused. The size limit was what frustrated their attempt to get flexible use for the whole unit.
As far as the Diyarbakir application is concerned, the lesson I take from the Sira experience is that despite the obvious indications that the intention was to run a single businesss, the applications were approved. Had they then tried to run the whole premises using individual flexible change permits they would have come a cropper. One hopes the same will apply to Diyarbakir.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
